Driver Almost Takes Our Car Door off - Says We're at Fault and Won't Answer Calls

LIssun on 16/05/2025 - 23:08
Last edited 17/05/2025 - 10:51 by 1 other user

Hey all, just looking for a bit of advice.

The other day my partner was getting out of the car. She checked the rear-view mirror, saw nothing coming, and got out fully. Just as she stood up, a car came around the corner heading towards her. There wasn’t much room to move, so she kind of "sucked her gut in" and pulled the door in towards herself. The driver clipped the door—nearly hit my partner—and ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

The driver stopped and came out all frantic, saying the sun was in her eyes and she couldn’t see. They swapped details (well, the lady gave the bare minimum—just a phone number), and that was that. Now our door won’t close properly without pushing it down from the outside, and the window won’t go all the way down either.

Now the insurance part:

We’re only covered for third party. The other driver claimed it was our fault, and both insurers (RACT for her, AAMI for us) have sided with her. They’re saying my partner “created a hazard” by getting out of the car Reference, so there’s no point trying to dispute it.

We’ve tried calling and texting the other driver to talk it through, but she’s gone radio silent for three days now.

So here’s the question:

There’s no actual evidence, she admitted she couldn’t see, and my partner was almost taken out—has anyone had any luck disputing something like this? Or should we just cop the excess and higher premium?

Street view / diagram:

Automotive Accident Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

          • Muppet Detector on 17/05/2025 - 20:40
            +2

            @CaptainJack: Could be.

            If I don't want to hit something in front of me, my car has a brake.

            • CaptainJack on 17/05/2025 - 22:05

              @Muppet Detector: If you want to navigate around something, you use the steering wheel not the brake.

              • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 08:43
                +1

                @CaptainJack: Normally you need both steering and braking to avoid stuff.

                • CaptainJack on 18/05/2025 - 10:01

                  @Euphemistic: You might, but a capable driver can move laterally at residential speeds.

                  • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 14:21

                    @CaptainJack: If there is nothing coming the other way.

                  • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:47

                    @CaptainJack: If moving laterally means leaving your designated area and crossing lanes into someone else's designated area, especially where it may be into oncoming traffic, far less an adjacent lane travelling in the same direction as yours, are you suggesting that this is what a capable driver should do to avoid a hazard within their own designated area?

                    • CaptainJack on 23/05/2025 - 11:42

                      @Muppet Detector: Can you clarify the question?

                      You are asking whether it's ok to move into an oncoming lane where there may (or may not) be traffic. First you need to determine if there is oncoming traffic.

              • Muppet Detector on 19/05/2025 - 18:42

                @CaptainJack: I've got one of those too!

      • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:36

        There's a streetview photo in the OP.

  • Kremleen on 17/05/2025 - 11:21
    +7

    hey OP, I hate to break it to you but you might be at fault here.

    Other driver came around the corner but you didn't tell us if she turned and was established in the new road she turned into or she hit you while turning. If she was established in the lane then by having the door opened, even though minimally, you created a hazard to oncoming traffic and as determined by both insurance parties, you were at fault.

    If the other party hit you while turning, where you parked illegally? Even if you were parked legally(not in a no stopping zone near an intersection), your car was parked after the intersection she turned from and could be very hard to argue as she could have given way to all incoming traffic.

    Lastly, without any video evidence of the incident, everything could be chalked down as hearsay and with hearsay, you needed to filter things so the facts remained. And in this case, the facts were your right hand side door was opened and a car legally coming from behind hit your door. With those two facts, what do you think the outcome would be?

  • just-human on 17/05/2025 - 12:23
    +2

    I think if you opened the door onto the road, that is your fault. While it could be argued that the other driver could (and probably should) have stopped, it doesn't make them at fault.

    However, if you believe you are correct, you can lodge a complaint with their insurance. If they are unable to resolve it, you can escalate the claim to AFCA. After that, you are out of luck unless you want to go to a tribunal or court.

    • bargaino on 17/05/2025 - 13:51
      +4

      The driver was already out of the car when it was hit. So not the usual "opening a door without looking, and the other driver has not time to react." I know that happens a lot!

      My habit is to open door a little before I even remove the seatbelt, then check mirror again, then open door.

      • just-human on 17/05/2025 - 14:29
        +1

        I believe that would still make the OP at fault. At the end of the day they opened the door into an active road. The need to make sure they can open the door, close it, leave the road, and go to safety without being a danger to traffic.

        I think the other driver probably could have stopped but that is a hard argument to make legally.

        • AnophthalmiaCervidae on 17/05/2025 - 16:21

          If the OP('s partner) was fully out of the car when the other car "came around the corner" and instead of the OP of "sucking her gut in" and just the door getting hit, OP was just standing there and got hit by the other car it would be hard to argue no fault to the other driver

        • Muppet Detector on 17/05/2025 - 20:44

          Other driver was hiding around the corner.

          OP probably couldn't even see them when they opened the door and got out.

          That stuff takes time. What was Mario Kart doing whilst all that was happening in front of them?

      • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 16:06

        The driver was already out of the car when it was hit

        So the door was left open, you can't just leave a door open into the road and expect traffic to stop.

        • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:38
          -1

          Pedestrians can't just begin to cross at pedestrian crossings whilst there are no cars and expect any cars that come around the corner to do so safely and not hit them.

          /s

          • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:48
            -1

            @tenpercent: There is no pedestrian crossing here.

            • tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 11:20

              @Muppet Detector: What is an analogy?

              • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 11:29

                @tenpercent: Not what you provided. The two scenarios were not similar. (Did you read your link?)

                • tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 11:41

                  @Muppet Detector: Yes they were similar.

                  Since this analogy is difficult for you, I will attempt to explain it more simply for you.

                  Let's start with some context.

                  The comment to which my analogy was replying was:

                  …you can't just leave a door open into the road and expect traffic to stop.

                  But they left out the detail that has been discussed ad nauseum:

                  The OP's partner was standing outside of the vehicle already and therefore must have already begun the process of exiting the vehicle safely when it was clear to do so with sufficient gap in traffic. The car at fault came around the corner and clipped the door anyway so therefore was not driving safely.

                  The analogy I replied with was:

                  Pedestrians can't just begin to cross at pedestrian crossings whilst there are no cars and expect any cars that come around the corner to do so safely and not hit them.

                  So the similaries here are:

                  • person on foot involved / in the analogy a pedestrian is involved
                  • car door hit with person next to it / in the analogy a pedestrian is hit
                  • person had already halfway through exiting their vehicle safely / in the analogy a pedestrian is already part way through crossing the road
                  • driver in OP not driving safely / driver in analogy not driving safely
                  • driver in OP gets a free pass / therefore driver who hit pedestrian also gets a free pass
        • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 08:45
          -1

          So the door was left open, you can't just leave a door open into the road and expect traffic to stop.

          And you cant just open and shut a door instantly while you are getting in or out.

          • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 17:18
            +1

            @Euphemistic: you have to wait until the traffic is clear before getting out.

            3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.

            If the door was closed, the hazard wouldn't exist and the accident wouldn't have occurred

            • Euphemistic on 19/05/2025 - 18:02
              +1

              @Davo1111: And if youve opened the door when clear, then stepped out and a car comes around the corner?

              • Muppet Detector on 19/05/2025 - 18:44

                @Euphemistic: Move faster seems to be the expectation.

                • Euphemistic on 19/05/2025 - 19:20
                  +1

                  @Muppet Detector: We really need to get away from car first mentality. Cars are tools and should not be seen as something that has priority.

                  • Muppet Detector on 19/05/2025 - 19:26

                    @Euphemistic: It makes sense to me to avoid being hit by a car. If you don't die, people can get pretty messed up. Being right is never going to make up for that, so IMO mentality should be to avoid being hit by a car.

                    Cars are big. If they hit me, that will hurt. Seems that sensible priority would be to avoid being hit by car, no?

                    • Euphemistic on 19/05/2025 - 19:48
                      +1

                      @Muppet Detector: Absolutely agree that ill avoid being hit by a car as much as possible. But from the other side, our collective driving attitude expects to be able to barrell along at the speed limits any and everywhere with no courtesy for others that arent in cars using the roads.

                      We need to move away from 'the car is more important' to focussing on things like allowing people to get in and out safely, like for pedestrians to be able to cross the road knowing that a car will give way if youve started t cross and then a car then wants to turn acrossBeing able to cycle safely alongside the road etc.

                      • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 19:55

                        @Euphemistic: Btw. I dont think it's morally right that technically you could just deliberately hit an open car door and you're automatically not at fault.

                        However, the law is written that way. So you need to be careful.

                        • Euphemistic on 19/05/2025 - 20:03
                          +1

                          @Davo1111: In this case, going on OPs description i'd hazard that fault would be pinned on the driver, not the parker if there was video footage. Yes, you cant open a door into traffic to create a hazard, but equally every driver has a responsibility to not hit stuff.

                          The law is there so people don't open doors willy nilly, not so you cannot open a door if there's a chance a car may pass.

                          • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 20:09

                            @Euphemistic:

                            In this case, going on OPs description i'd hazard that fault would be pinned on the driver, not the parker if there was video footage.

                            That was my initial thought too. But that's not what the law says. Legal and moral are different.

                            Also, people generally play down their own guilt, so take each "side" with a grain of salt

                            • Euphemistic on 20/05/2025 - 05:37

                              @Davo1111:

                              But that's not what the law says. Legal and moral are different.

                              Thats why we have courts and juries to decide ultimately whether a person is guilty or not. Just because the law says one thing, doesnt mean it applies to every situation. The insurers just applied the simplified rule so they dont have to pay.

                              And as ive said it elsewhere in the thread, we dont have evidence, just heresay. Im just pointing out that for every person who has attributed 100% blame somewhere, there are other possibiilities. I dont know the truth, nor does anyone else reading this thread.

                              • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2025 - 10:56

                                @Euphemistic:

                                Just because the law says one thing, doesnt mean it applies to every situation

                                When doesn't the law apply?

                                • Euphemistic on 20/05/2025 - 16:23

                                  @Muppet Detector: The law applies for the specific instance it was written for. In this case, opening a door such that a passing car or cyclist does not have time to react, or cannot avoid said door. If the door was open and five cars drive past it safely and the sixth hits it for example.

                                  Its not so much the law not applying, but the law not being applicable to a different circumstance.

                        • tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 11:56

                          @Davo1111:

                          However, the law is written that way.

                          I don't agree. The cited regulation does not say that opening a door to exit your vehicle automatically means you've created a hazard, it says you're not allowed to create a hazard by opening your door. It could be that the OP's partner did create a hazard by opening it unsafely into traffic without sufficient gap, but the fact (or claim) that she was already out of the vehicle with two feet on the ground suggests it was safe to do so when she began the procedure of exiting the vehicle, in which case either the door only became a hazard by virtue of the other driver not driving to conditions with due care and attention and in that case it is the other driver who created the hazard or the door was never a hazard and the only hazard was the bad driving.

              • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 19:52

                @Euphemistic: Yep. Or dont park there.

                If you look at the space on street view, it's not a good park. I wouldn't park there.

  • Drakesy on 17/05/2025 - 12:37
    +4

    You're at fault bud

    • tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 11:59

      Did you read the OP?

      • Drakesy on 23/05/2025 - 12:47

        Yes?

        Literally opening a door into traffic is called dooring and it's the stationary car's fault (OP's in this case).

  • bigbadaboom on 17/05/2025 - 15:21

    if 3rd party insurance, you got to make it easier for your insurer to take your side at least. dash cam, a photo of that woman's driver license, bare minimum. By the sounds of it, you were at actual fault, so this was already a stretch.

  • 2025 on 17/05/2025 - 16:20
    +4

    OP you’re lucky it wasn’t a dead cyclist, or even worse, a litigious cyclist.

    And why are you even calling the other party?!? Your insurance, and theirs, have decided you’re at fault. What is calling them going to achieve? Honestly, it sounds like you’re beginning to harass an innocent road user because you and your partner refuse to be held accountable for your own mistakes. No wonder they’re not answering.

  • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 16:22
    +2

    Driver Almost Takes Our Car Door off - Says We're at Fault and Won't Answer Calls

    The question is, why do you think you are not at fault when your door was opened into traffic?

  • Doboman on 17/05/2025 - 17:32

    Sorry to hear this. We all learn one day. I had few accidents in Victoria , where minor accidents. I without thinking or having a look properly letting them go with phone number. I was told by police and insurance that if you do not exchange driver licences it your own fault. So even a small dent I ask for details or take copy of the licence. NO EXCEPTIONS :). This has help with will all accidents in my life time. Lesson learn now and time to move on. Sorry to say but opening door traffic is most likely your fault. Hope you could find a someone to fix it. Good luck.

  • dlakers3peat on 17/05/2025 - 18:39
    +3

    I can tell you from first hand experience that you have no hope fighting this. My wife was driving one day and hit someones car door that was open, and both insurers sided with us. Both had comprehensive insurance.

  • pegaxs on 17/05/2025 - 18:59
    +9

    For anyone who cares… Location is in New Town, Taswegia, right about here. The biggest issue I can see here is the lack of space for cars to pass, especially if there is a car with a door open. It's not like it is a wide street. (And why do all photos of Tasmanian citys and towns all look like photos of England stuck in the late 60's?)

    I was going to paste the relevant legislation, but it appears as though OP already looked it up. The onus is on the driver or passenger of a parked vehicle to not obstruct traffic when opening a door. It doesn't matter if the other party said "sorry, I didn't see you, the sun was in my eyes…" the onus is still on the parked vehicle to not open their door.

    That being said, there is still an onus on a driver to not get into an accident and to make a concerted effort to avoid crashing into someone else, even if that person is at fault.

    The unfortunate thing here is it is your word against theirs and unless you have some contrary proof or evidence, even if you took this to court, you are going to lose if you have nothing more that "but she said she couldnt see and hit our door". A magistrate is going to look at this on the "balance of probabilities" and will just side with the other driver that you opened the door in front of their car.

    Just be thankful it was a car that hit you and a: your wife is still alive to tell the story, or b: it wasnt a motorcycle/bicycle rider that ran into the door and killed them or sent them to a life in a wheelchair. Pay your excess. Thank whatever deity you pray to and move on with your life.

    • 2025 on 18/05/2025 - 16:25

      How did you find this BTW? Great detective work!

  • Hangryuman on 17/05/2025 - 19:01

    'We’re only covered for third party'

    now you get to pay for a life lesson, using the money you saved by not paying for comprehensive insurance … ;-)

  • lonewolf on 17/05/2025 - 19:14
    +1

    I find this odd, so insurers side with the driver and not the person whose car door was already open (not swung open at the time of impact) for a few seconds at least before?

    My mum's side view mirror got destroyed while she was driving down a small street where the tradie had left his door wide open before my mum got to the car / ute. Would insurance have sided with her?

    • TEER3X on 18/05/2025 - 21:56

      Would insurance have sided with her?

      Not if you ran the insurance company apparently

    • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2025 - 18:04
      -1

      The driver will only be at fault if he has entered the designated parking space. If he is travelling along in his marked lane at the correct speed limit he is allowed to presume that there won't be any obstacles in that lane (unless otherwise marked such as zebra crossing etc).

      However, defensive driving teaches you to keep an eye on those parked cars as you approach them because the objective is to not crash your car and sometimes things happen.

      Unfortunately, it is not a legal requirement to drive defensively or use common sense.

      • lonewolf on 20/05/2025 - 18:09

        damn, I just thought its always the person who is moving at fault if the other car was stationary even if it was doing the wrong thing by keeping the door open and blocking the road.

      • Euphemistic on 21/05/2025 - 10:18

        If he is travelling along in his marked lane at the correct speed limit he is allowed to presume that there won't be any obstacles in that lane

        Thats absolutely not true. Thats just the poor driving culture weve cone to expect. You always need to drive to avoid crashing.

        Unfortunately, it is not a legal requirement to drive defensively or use common sense.

        Whike maybe the law doesnt state it as such, the entire traffic law is written around not having right of way. It is written around responsibility to give way. Ever heard of negligent driving? You ALWAYS have a responsibility to avoid crashing.

        This is exactly what is wrong with our driving culture. Expecting to be able to travel along the roads at the posted limit and assuming everyone else will stay out of the way if they have a responsibility to give way ahead of me.

        • Muppet Detector on 21/05/2025 - 15:38

          Ever heard of negligent driving? You ALWAYS have a responsibility to avoid crashing.

          Have you?

          I don't think negligent driving means what you think it does. Not in a legal sense as expected and defined by the various traffic Acts or criminal codes, anyway.

          Just pointing out, EVERYONE has a responsibility to avoid crashing. Not everyone who is involved in a crash CAUSED the accident. Not everyone who is involved in an accident was negligent.

          • Euphemistic on 21/05/2025 - 15:47

            @Muppet Detector: Negligent driving is just an example of there being a legal example of where if you dont drive defensively, there are consequences. There are probably other legal terms that also apply.

            Yes, its true that there are innocent parties. But in many, if not most crashes, multiple drivers are guilty of not driving defensively enough and could be apportioned some of the blame - assuming that there was a mechanism to apply portions of blame after thorough investigation. We are however, in a system that simplifies it (normally) to one person at fault.

            Back to the topic at hand, if you have the opportunity to avoid an open door from a parked car, then you must do that. The particular law quoted is written for the cases where there is no opportunity to avoid hitting the door.

            • Muppet Detector on 21/05/2025 - 15:58

              @Euphemistic: Your answer expressly refers to defensive driving and common sense (to which I also referred), not legal principles which seems to be what you are contradicting.

              I think you got sidetracked by the word presume (among others), do you know the definition of that word?

              You contradict me as if I am making shit up and then when I challenge your assertion, you revert to vague references to laws that "might" exist and "assumptions" and then comment about defensive driving and common sense.

        • Muppet Detector on 21/05/2025 - 15:49

          Did you even read what I wrote?

          Sure, I could have elaborated to make it expressly clear for people who lacked comprehension skills and said "travelling at correct speed limit… for the conditions", but I did think that would be a given.

          • Euphemistic on 21/05/2025 - 15:58

            @Muppet Detector: Ok. What does negligent driving mean then?

            Just because you're travelling in the lane at the speed limit doesnt mean you cant be responsible for crashing.

            • Muppet Detector on 21/05/2025 - 16:01

              @Euphemistic: You tell everyone. You're the one who bought it up. And if you can, refer to it in its legal application as the post you contradicted was framed upon legal principles.

      • smartazz104 on 23/05/2025 - 10:54

        he is allowed to presume that there won't be any obstacles in that lane (unless otherwise marked such as zebra crossing etc).

        Should he be presuming or using his eyes…

  • Succulent on 17/05/2025 - 19:16
    +2

    OP, do you have little kid where the carseat is on the rear driver side?

    If you do, i would recommend to switch them to the rear passenger side.

  • DazMon on 17/05/2025 - 21:45

    Insurance company told her to cut all ties right?

  • Kodak on 17/05/2025 - 23:43
    -8

    From Chatgpt (pasted description), but makes sense…

    You're in a frustrating and all-too-common grey area of car insurance and road law. Let's break it down and then look at your options:

    Key Issues in Your Case:
    Your partner was legally parked and exiting the vehicle.

    The other driver admitted the sun was in her eyes, which implies a failure to drive to the conditions.

    The insurance companies have decided against you, likely because they see opening a car door into traffic as a strict liability issue unless there's compelling evidence otherwise.

    Why the Insurers Ruled Against You:
    In most Australian jurisdictions (e.g., under Road Rules 269), the person opening a car door must ensure it’s safe. Insurers often interpret this very strictly.

    Your third-party policy means you don’t have much leverage—you can't claim for your own damage.

    Insurers rarely act as judges in these disputes. They go by the rules and who presents more persuasive evidence.

    But Here’s the Catch:
    The other driver admitted fault verbally (“sun was in my eyes”). That can be relevant if you were to take this further, even if insurers ignore it.

    You’re not legally bound by the insurer’s determination—you can pursue a claim directly against the at-fault driver for damages.

    Your Options:
    1. Send a Letter of Demand
    You can write a formal letter of demand to the other driver asking for the cost of repairs (you’ll need quotes). If she doesn't respond, you can escalate.

    1. Small Claims Court (Magistrates Court)
      In Tasmania, this would fall under the Minor Civil Claims division (usually under $5,000).

    You don’t need a lawyer, and you can argue:

    Your partner exited legally and cautiously.

    The other driver failed to drive to the conditions.

    She admitted the sun obstructed her view.

    She clipped a fully opened, stationary door, which implies inadequate awareness.

    Evidence helps. If you have:

    Photos of the scene/damage,

    The text messages,

    A witness statement (your partner’s version is valid),

    A repair quote…

    That strengthens your case.

    1. Try a Complaint via the Insurance Ombudsman (AFCA)
      You can lodge a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) against the other driver's insurer (RACT), arguing they unfairly accepted liability based on flimsy evidence. It won’t always work, but it’s free and worth a try—especially if RACT accepted her version without investigation.

    Bottom Line:
    No, you don’t have to “just cop it.”

    It is worth disputing if you’re willing to do some legwork.

    You have legal avenues, especially if the other driver continues to ignore you.

    Start with a letter of demand. If that fails, court is your next step—it’s surprisingly accessible in cases like this.

    • Baysew on 19/05/2025 - 19:58
      +1

      Insurers rarely act as judges in these disputes. They go by the rules and who presents more persuasive evidence.

      Are you sure about that?

      Sounds pretty much that insurers are acting as judges. They go by the road rules and see were the evidence points. Two separate insures have come up with the same result.

      • Baysew on 21/05/2025 - 16:01
        • where
        • insurers
  • apey2000 on 18/05/2025 - 02:11
    +4

    I wouldn't answer your calls either. That's what insurance is for. Oh wait…

  • Lucille Bluth on 18/05/2025 - 07:13
    +4

    We’ve tried calling and texting the other driver to talk it through, but she’s gone radio silent for three days now.

    I wouldn't be answering your calls or texts either, especially if I was found not at fault. That's why I get insurance, so they deal with it on my behalf.

  • pjd24 on 18/05/2025 - 08:56
    +4

    What are the make/model of both cars? Not sure if you are aware, but on the internet, guilt is directly decided by what make/model the car is… e.g. camry is guilty of all bad driving decisions, tesla is entitled to be self righteous… so on. So without this info, it is impossible to rule

  • Eeples on 18/05/2025 - 09:20

    *third party property

    • 2025 on 18/05/2025 - 16:21
      +1

      Thanks to @pegaxs we know where this is despite OPs attempts to conceal the location. As to why that was done, it’s just another indication that we aren’t getting the whole story. If you search Hobart Kitchen Centre in a map, you can see. To me it seems plausible the sun could’ve interfered, they weren’t heading south.

      Infact, in the streetview that @pegaxs linked, it looks like the sun is right where it needs to be to make it difficult to see, if there wasn’t any cloud cover.

      • smartazz104 on 23/05/2025 - 11:00
        +1

        What a dumb place for the traffic island and/or that specific parking spot.

  • OrderInWrongWordsThe on 19/05/2025 - 00:01
    +1

    Firstly I'm not a lawyer but I would suggest neither is the person in the insurer who told you that they will use that law to get out of it. What they are relying on here is the fact that the wording is both very specific but also super vague.

    I'm a little surprised by the general sentiment in this thread that because the insurers have decided that your partner is at fault we simply take that at face value and go case closed. That said Ozbargain appears to have some kind of love hate relationship with car accidents/fines etc. and these threads really whip the masses up into a frenzy.

    For those who have gone so black and white may I present Reg 236 "A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver." Obviously this means that if a car slams into someone crossing a pedestrian crossing the pedestrian is at fault because they created a hazard by moving into the cars path. Also fun fact just learnt that in Tasmania you can cop a $1000 fine as a pedestrian for unreasonably obstructing another pedestrian….except if you are just walking slowly, that's fine.

    My point from above is that the law is likely intended to cover cases where you open your door suddenly and dangerously meaning traffic cannot react or in weird places nobody expects like middle of the road. Taking your story at face value this sounds more like someone came around a corner, barely even saw the car and hit it. Potentially would have hit it even with the door closed, we will never know. Essentially I doubt that despite what both insurers want you to think the law was intended to say that drivers can just run into any open door with immunity because that's downright insane and we don't live in GTA.

    Obviously the fact you don't have comprehensive here hasn't helped but let's all not forget that the insurance company isn't really designed to help you, it's designed to earn money. Closing cases fast and in a way where they have to pay out the least money is obviously in their interest. Looking into your case is hard and costs money so it's much easier to just tell you to pound sand because as shown here most people will also just tell you it's your problem and to suck it up. You then probably won't do anything about it.

    The only reasonable option I can think of and was mentioned above is to make a formal complaint escalting up to an ombudsman. AAMI lists this out here https://www.aami.com.au/privacy/complaints.html. Obviously fixing your car isn't their problem though and I can't say for sure whether you can go down AFCA path with the other drivers insurer but I would suggest rather than slugging out in this thread contact someone like AFCA to ask the question. In the end the real question is the fight worth it knowing you may fail and you are never getting the time and emotional investment back even if you win.

    • eddyah on 19/05/2025 - 08:13

      tl dr version is the OP parked in a bad spot and is liable

    • lint on 19/05/2025 - 11:32
      +2

      Your analogy of Reg 236 is incorrect as it is titled "Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction." A pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing is not considered a traffic hazard or obstruction and a car that hits someone at such a crossing would be covered by Reg 81 "Giving way at a pedestrian crossing" (both of these are relevant for NSW as that's the link you provided for your example):

      (1) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must drive at a speed at which the driver can, if necessary, stop safely before the crossing.

      (2) A driver must give way to any pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.

      In the case of Tasmanian Reg 269 "Opening doors and getting out of a vehicle, etc" there is no provision or exception to say if you check there was no traffic when you opened your door, any vehicle that does later come along must stop or drive around the hazard you created. It was also clearly not created specifically for the scenarios you've mentioned, such as opening the door suddenly or in lanes of moving traffic as they would have narrowed the regulation to such circumstances if that were the case.

      It also specifically says you must not create a hazard throughout the entire process of opening a door, leaving a door open, and getting out of a vehicle. If the driver of another vehicle has to stop, slow or alter their path to avoid an accident due to the door, then by definition a hazard has been created.

  • imurgod on 19/05/2025 - 07:59
    -4

    It sounds like you have a rubbish policy with a rubbish insurer.

    Your partner is definitely not at fault if the door was already open and the damage to the third party vehicle is at the front.

    Most insurer claims staff and assessors are absolutely clueless about road rules or liability.

    • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 20:05

      Both (different) insurers disagree with you, and cited the law.

      I think it's probable that all other insurance providers would all disagree too.

      If you have an insurance provider that just pays out on what they think is morally right, not legally. Can you let us know?

      • imurgod on 20/05/2025 - 08:13

        25 years experience talking here with a hire car specialisation (i.e. happens a lot with hire cars).

        If you open the door onto a passing vehicle, you're at fault.

        If your door is already open and the vehicle hits it, they're at fault - Same as hitting any stationary vehicle.

        Unless I've misunderstood the description, I'm 100% correct. Morals have nothing to do with it, it's a legal position.

        I have never had any insurer not pay for this type of claim, ever.

        • Davo1111 on 20/05/2025 - 08:43

          it's a legal position.

          Austlii says no.

          • imurgod on 20/05/2025 - 16:18

            @Davo1111: So if you hit stationary vehicles, the stationary vehicles are at fault?

            Maybe insurers have just been paying those claims for fun all these years!

            If you just drive into a car that has the door open rather than avoid it, you're at fault.

            Common sense, mate.

          • 2025 on 21/05/2025 - 21:21
            +1

            @Davo1111:

            Austlii says no.

            It would be interesting to know which case law you’re referring to here.

  • apple2016 on 19/05/2025 - 08:51
    -2

    Your insurance has to take your side or give you proof as to why you are in the wrong! Talk to them again. You might not get anything for your car, but would be able to get out of paying for the other cars damages.

    • Baysew on 21/05/2025 - 16:07

      The OP's insurance has provided "proof" -

      They’re saying my partner “created a hazard” by getting out of the car Reference, so there’s no point trying to dispute it.

      • apple2016 on 25/05/2025 - 00:47

        Its not proof unless there is a dashcam video.
        there are claiming OP's partner "created a hazard". I would dispute this stating door was open for few mins and the other car had ample time to avoid but did not pay attention to the road…

        • Muppet Detector on 26/05/2025 - 10:12

          Nobody has proof.

          However default position of the legislation is that parked car is creating a hazard if their actions to exit the car impede on users of adjoining designated spaces (road and footpath).

          There are no caveats for "only did it for a little while", "I was there first", or "opened for enough time for other car to see and avoid it".

          None of that is relevant, especially if there is no physical proof such as dash cam footage. Even then, unlikely to be relevant as legislation is written to place burden on parked car.

  • blorx on 19/05/2025 - 09:47
    +6

    so she kind of "sucked her gut in" and pulled the door in towards herself. The driver clipped the door—nearly hit my partner—and ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

    Pulling the door in close, clipping it and also bending it right around to the front - just doesn't add up. It would've had to been fairly open to bend it round. Or if it was that close, you'd mention your partner maybe being hurt or at least emotionally scarred from the incident.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join